Leonard Little found innocent of drunken driving

CLAYTON, Mo. (AP) - St. Louis Rams defensive end Leonard Little was found innocent of drunken driving Friday by a St. Louis County Circuit jury.

Jurors ruled that Little was speeding at the time of his arrest April 24 on Interstate 64 in a St. Louis suburb. He will be sentenced on that charge May 6.
"We're absolutely thrilled," said Little's lawyer, Scott Rosenblum. "Couldn't be happier."

Little will not be considered a persistent offender, which had been a possibility under the charges because he pleaded guilty to involuntary manslaughter in a 1998 drunken-driving accident in downtown St. Louis that killed 47-year-old Susan Gutweiler.

Little served three months in jail, completed 1,000 hours of community service and four years of probation for the earlier crime. He was also suspended without pay for the first half of the 1999 season.

The prosecution argued in this case that Little failed several field sobriety tests when stopped for speeding and refused to be chemically tested for alcohol when taken into custody.

Rosenblum countered that his client should be cleared, arguing in part that the officer at the scene failed to give Little the proper instructions.

Rosenblum said during the trial that Little had consumed two beers and was not intoxicated when stopped by police, who reportedly found Little driving 78 mph in a 55-mph zone.

Little had 46 tackles, 6 ½ sacks and recovered four fumbles last season. He was a Pro Bowl selection in 2003.

Just to add insult to injury: The man who lost his wife because of Little is the photographer for the St. Louis Rams. He still shoots photos for the team and has to look at the man who killed his wife every week.

Are you serious? That is horrible. I guess the rich can buy innocence through their high priced lawyers...I am not saying he killed her intentionally, but he was drunk, it's called intoxication manslaughter. I know if I ever killed anyone in any way, unless it is in self defense or to protect my family, I do not know how I would live with myself. Hope your happy Mr. Little...

Are you serious? That is horrible. I guess the rich can buy innocence through their high priced lawyers...

Click to expand...

ESPN did a story a story on this man and his son, and the whole time I was just thinking "you're kidding me." I can't imagine what goes through this guys mind when he sees Little on that field, and hears people cheering him (Little).

If it was me I think I would have found another job...but still I fell horrible for him and his son....and I guarantee if it was me or you that hit and killed that poor woman, we would be sitting behind bars right now...

This guy just makes me sick. He kills somebody driving drunk, and what do you know, he goes and drives after drinking again. That's a complete lack of respect for the woman he killed, to go and tempt fate like that a second time. I was hoping he'd be convicted and never see the playing field again...

Little will not be considered a persistent offender, which had been a possibility under the charges because he pleaded guilty to involuntary manslaughter in a 1998 drunken-driving accident in downtown St. Louis that killed 47-year-old Susan Gutweiler.

Little served three months in jail, completed 1,000 hours of community service and four years of probation for the earlier crime. He was also suspended without pay for the first half of the 1999 season.

Click to expand...

There is just something wrong with this. I mean he KILLED a woman and served 3 months in jail . And the NFL is no better, only an 8 game supension what a joke. I hope that if a Texan committed the same crime he would no longer be aTexan.

I guess I'm a real square old fashin type of guy, probably far too puritanical
for my own good, but how do these trial lawyers keep getting these guys off and puting them back in a vehicle. I know they get a lot of money from a defendant like this, but these lawyers have familty right - children, spouse,
parents, siblings, etc. How can you keep being a party to putting these killers
back on the street knowing your loved ones are on those same streets ?

My younger brother is a lawyer, and he should take this case up and bring Little to justice, he should definitly be charged and put in jail. After the death he caused, he should not have been free in the first place, and this is just reasoning in:

It doesnt take a NFL-aholic to let him go. They look at this man and see a wealthy professional athlete. They know that kids look up to him as role models and so forth, so they let him go.

It's sort of like when Jamal Lewis had to serve Jail Time it was arranged so he could serve it in the offseason. If i was to get charged, do you think they'd let me wait and serve it when i take my yearly vacation from work?

Little was found innocent, therefore I am going to presume that he was innocent...None of us were in the car that night with Little, so we are all basically going on hearsay...Little is an easily dislikable person, but if he was found innocent by a jury of his peers, then I think it's safe to say he wasn't intoxicated...

Maybe the Jury said innocent, because they look at a wealthy famous figure, and they know him going to jail would upset alot of children looking up to him. Its just that these day it seems as if celebrities/athletes get off easy, If this trial happened to you or me, I'd think the chances of us being guilty just went up 50%. Jury says innocent because he can appoint some big name lawyer to appeal, while we are nobodies with not enough money to do any of that

I think it probably had more to do with the kind of representation he was able to buy, not what he did for a living. Good lawyers make a world of difference. And he may be "not guilty" in this case, but he doggone sure ain't innocent.

Whatever. Just hire a freaking driver, willya, Little? You make enough money.

I'd like to hear what Government you prefer as more fair, and more honest when it comes to legal matters.

Click to expand...

I don't think this is your intention because I feel like you're one of the more intelligent posters around here, but that statement has a major flaw to it. This isn't about what other "government" might be more fair or honest, and just because this one might be better than all the others, doesn't mean there aren't any flaws in it now and then that still need to be addressed at times.

I'd like to hear what Government you prefer as more fair, and more honest when it comes to legal matters.

Click to expand...

Well, I didn't make the original statement but I have an answer for you.

I'd prefer the one we have. I'd just like to see it run the way it was intended. For some time I've wondered why chemical tests for alcohol or drugs are even optional. I'm serious too. I can't think of one single good reason why anyone should even have a right to refuse a blood/breath/urine test.

If you pass it end of story and no harm done. If you fail it then you get exactly what you deserved.

I can't think of one single good reason why anyone should even have a right to refuse a blood/breath/urine test.

Click to expand...

The Fourth Amendment? If a warrant is obtained, your blood/breath/urine can be tested without your permission. Else, it's illegal search & seizure. Lets not toss out a Constitution thats worked for so many years just because a jury misses a verdict now & then. Its a system made up of people, and people sometimes make mistakes.